Doull 1995.

Methods	Design: multi‐centre, randomised, double‐blind, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled trial Sponsor: Allen and Hanbury (UK) and the Wessex Medical Trust
Participants	Setting: 5 health centres in the Southampton area Eligible: 104 Randomly assigned: 52 (beclomethasone 200 μg); 52 (placebo) Analysed: 44 (beclomethasone 200 μg); 40 (placebo) Gender (male): 70.1% Age, months, mean ± SE: beclomethasone 100.3 ± 1.4; placebo 99.4 ± 1.6 Inclusion criteria: children 7 to 9 years of age, with 5 or more wheezing episodes in the preceding year or an episode of wheezing lasting for 3 days or longer in the preceding year Exclusion criteria: use of inhaled or oral corticosteroids; severe respiratory disease such as cystic fibrosis Previous regular use of ICS: not allowed
Interventions	Test group: Beclomethasone, 400 μg/d Control group: matching placebo Treatment was delivered twice daily via Diskhaler. Treatment duration was 7 months, followed by a washout period of 4 months
Outcomes	Linear growth velocity (mm/wk) Change in height over time (cm) Adrenal function (overnight urinary cortisol). Height was measured by a single observer in triplicate at each visit, using a Raven monitor
Notes	Treatment compliance was measured by counting the used Diskhaler blisters. Compliance rate was 75.2% in the beclomethasone group and 75.9% in the placebo group
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Use of matching placebo
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Use of matching placebo
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Withdrawal rate was 2/52 (3.8%) in the beclomethasone group and 8/52 (15.4%) in the placebo group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol is not available, but published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified
Other bias	Low risk	Study appears to be free of other sources of bias